T1B

Pro-terrorist Attorney General Eric Holder considers us a "nation of cowards," but he isn't taking any chances about us defending our property and our country from the Marxist looters who now run the government. The inevitable campaign to strip away our Second Amendment rights has begun.

Holder announced yesterday that he wants a new ban on "assault weapons." Supposedly, we should be willing to let corrupt authoritarians infringe on our right to bear arms so that the weapons don't fall into the hands of criminals in Mexico. An easier way to prevent this would be for the government to perform its most fundamental task: defend the border. But with Crappy Nappy heading DHS, even the pretense of border security is out the window.

Regarding what's next after "assault weapons," Holder mumbles, "I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be." But we can be sure that inch by inch, the camel will push us out of the tent, until the government agents who should be defending the border are instead tearing our houses appart to look for .22 rifles to confiscate.

All the pieces are falling into place

Banning assault weapons means "taking away your guns"?

Not getting too hysterical here, are we?

"From my cold dead hands..."
Oh wait, Chuck's already dead.

You can volunteer to be first in line to be shot

Mikey wrote:Banning assault weapons means "taking away your guns"?

Not getting too hysterical here, are we?

The key to this whole thing is "assault weapons" and how exactly it is defined. I define it as military type weapons like an AK-47 or M-16, Uzi, etc. Many in the rewriting the Constitution camp define "assult weapons" much more broadly.

First off very few people own the weapons I listed above. Even fewer use these in crimes. So question one is why ban a weapon that is not used very often in crime?

If we are actually talking about banning those models, I wouldn't put up a fight. I have no need for such a weapon and don't see the need of others for such.

Now if the definition is any broader, then I will fight against such a ban. In the past such assult weapons bans have included any gun with a magazine of more than 3 bullets as an assult weapon. That is just plain stupid on the backers part and is an attempt to lie to the citizens.

In the end I will continue to support the NRA and other who support legal gun ownership, because I don't trust those who wish to rewrite the Constitution to do so responsibly.

Left Seater wrote: If we are actually talking about banning those models, I wouldn't put up a fight. I have no need for such a weapon and don't see the need of others for such.

Oh, well, I guess if lefty doesn't see the need, then let's just round them all up.

This ^^^^^ is the kind of shit that pisses me off worse than the unabashed anti gun folks.

It doesn't matter what you see the need for, lefty. Give these bastards an inch and they surely will take a mile sooner or later.

If someone prefers a lightweight rifle with a clip that hold a bazillion rounds, who the fukk is the gubmint to deny him? Should it be 3 rounds? 15? 50? Why not just make everybody go back to muzzleloaders like they had at the writing of the constitution?

Guess you missed my point or I didn't do a good job of explaining.

One thing though, no one is hunting with those weapons. One shot isn't going to drop most animals and multiple shots make the take much smaller.

Now, if you want to carry AK-47s then so be it. I won't fight you. But at the same time if a specific bill came up and mentioned AK-47s only I also wouldn't fight that. My time and resources are limited and that is not one I need to put my energies into.

But if the wording is assult weapons then I am all over that.

Fully auto AKs along with all other fully auto weapons have been very regulated since about 1933. Piling on a few new laws will change nothing in that regard.

Totally agree. Hence my comment above about how few people have them.


Why would they go after such weapons, unless they want to use the shock value to expand to other types.

smackaholic wrote:Fully auto AKs along with all other fully auto weapons have been very regulated since about 1933. Piling on a few new laws will change nothing in that regard.

You don't understand.

Americans need to give these things up so that the Mexicans don't get ahold of them.

Left Seater wrote:Guess you missed my point or I didn't do a good job of explaining.

One thing though, no one is hunting with those weapons. One shot isn't going to drop most animals and multiple shots make the take much smaller.

Now, if you want to carry AK-47s then so be it. I won't fight you. But at the same time if a specific bill came up and mentioned AK-47s only I also wouldn't fight that. My time and resources are limited and that is not one I need to put my energies into.

But if the wording is assult weapons then I am all over that.

Assault weapon = AK-47 ( BTW is probably the best assault weapon in the world)

Weed eater = string trimmer

It's all word's and schematics.

Any infringement on our 2nd AMENDMENT rights is just that and unacceptable.




Crime will not increase.

Sincerely,

Australia

Derron wrote:

It's all word's and schematics.

fucking brilliant

mvscal wrote:

Derron wrote:Assault weapon = AK-47 ( BTW is probably the best assault weapon in the world)

It's a piece of shit. The Russians don't even use it anymore.

Put it in historical context. I think that's what he's driving at.

A "piece of shit" that rarely jammed and fired a ballistically superior round than the NATO 5.56, btw

mvscal wrote:Just a cheap knock off...

Yep.

Cheap, stamped parts ready for export.

Left Seater wrote:First off very few people own the weapons I listed above.

I wouldn't be suprised if a full half of my inner circle of friends own some variant of these.

I have no need for such a weapon and don't see the need of others for such.

Fuck you right in your sorry fucking mouth, you anti-American POS.

Sin,
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, et. al.

In the end I will continue to support the NRA

Since you obviously need someone to do your thinking for you, I suppose that's good people to turn the process over to.

Derron wrote:Assault weapon = AK-47 ( BTW is probably the best assault weapon in the world)

I loves me some AK's, and am disturbed by the bashing here, BUT...


It ain't no M-14 (the rifle that Our Boys fight over to this day in Iraq).


And at this point, I guess it depend on what your definition of "ballistically superior" is.

If I'm trying to make someone bleed at 300 yards... well, I missed. But on the odd chance I was having a good day, give me the 5.56. Less than 200...


Puh-leez.

I'll take splatter some fool over poking an annoying hole in him.


If I go to the range (hasn't happened in forever, and I don't even own a suitable gun anymore), I'll take the 5.56 all day long... but there's a different requirement for poking a hole through a piece of paper than there is for removing someone from the battlefield... duh.


Geez, don't you people read American Rifleman? They've been through this recently, and their articles shouldn't have been breaking news to anyone who's ever crack a ballistics guide.


But anyhoo...


In modern times, there's always two basic steps to establishing a totalitarian/fascist goverment -- first, you sieze the banks... then, you come for the weapons.

C'mon -- it's Fascism 101... and we've seen it countless times. So had the Founding Fathers -- hence, that whole Second Amendment thingy.

Dinsdale wrote: If I go to the range (hasn't happened in forever, and I don't even own a suitable gun anymore).

Felony conviction or did you have to pawn it to keep the heat on?

Just remember, it's not a loss till unless you sell -

----------------------

All Trolls aside, the best rifle I've ever shot is a SG 550 which uses the 5.56

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:It ain't no M-14 (the rifle that Our Boys fight over to this day in Iraq).

Another piece of shit.

So, what weapon isn't a piece of shit?


Well...........we're waiting.

The 2nd Amendment means what it says. The National Government can not infringe my right to keep (Have in my house) or bear (Walk around with) Arms. That means any arms available to the State, be it George III or George 43 or BHO.

Even for you idiots it’s pretty fucking simple.

mvscal wrote: From that generation of assault rifles, the SIG SG 510 was top of the class. Don't worry, Stanley. They're Swiss.

I know that my M16A1 was a piece of shit, but for some reason I still loved it. You become attached to them when you sleep with them everyday for a couple weeks. Of course, I realize that you got to sleep with yours a lot longer than I did with mine. You lucky bastard!




Me and my baby... heart flutters

mvscal wrote:In a historical context it was a piece of shit. Just a cheap knock off of a German design.

you are wrong...I have dead X-friends that prove this.

I wish you had been right,Son,it would have saved some tears

mvscal wrote:Nothing wrong with the M-16. It's been wasting "brown people" for over 40 years.

They finally got rid of the bugs in it now, but there was a time when it jammed way too damn easily. A lot of GI's lost their life in Vietnam because of that. And the maintenance required to keep it clean was ridiculious. That was the beauty of the AK-47. You could take a mud bath with it and it would still fire.

mvscal wrote: From that generation of assault rifles, the SIG SG 510 was top of the class. Don't worry, Stanley. They're Swiss.

So you have shot a 550/1 yet?

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:It ain't no M-14 (the rifle that Our Boys fight over to this day in Iraq).

Another piece of shit.

According to my buddy who served in Iraq, it's the preferred rifle for the desert... M16/M4 doesn't bust open an engine block, nor perform well with sand in it (although I'm told the M4 is greatly improved for reliability).

M14 was a very hot item in Iraq.


BTW- a few different opinions, and they seem to disagree with all of us (although not all are auto loaders/"assault rifles"):


http://www.americanrifleman.org/rifles_military.html

KC Scott wrote:[
Felony conviction or did you have to pawn it to keep the heat on?

Good guess... BUT...


I think I parlayed the last rifle into a 1911 knockoff and a Walther...

My name is Bond... Dins Bond.

I've had the same fleet for a while -- odd, since as a younger man, I never held on to any of them... always trading up, down, sideways... always wanted something different.

Had a cool HK offered up... might have to do it, although I hate 9's as a general rule. And if you read about how 9mm came to be, it's kinda funny. Wasn't designed for any sort of æffectiveness -- was merely designed as a remedy for a monumental, unfathomable fuckup by Luger.


Likes me some .45ACP. The Big Bang Theory and whatsuch.

Dinsdale wrote: Likes me some .45ACP. The Big Bang Theory and whatsuch.

Mine:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/ ... sFirearm=Y



$2,200 - 3 years ago

By Tac Team Buddy thought it was the best 45ACP he had shot - though he still prefers his Glock 34 for duty

KC Scott wrote:

mvscal wrote: From that generation of assault rifles, the SIG SG 510 was top of the class. Don't worry, Stanley. They're Swiss.

So you have shot a 550/1 yet?

I almost bought a Sig 556 SWAT rifle about a year ago. Too damn expensive though. The gas piston rifles have their advantages. Cost, however, is certainly not one of them.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:According to my buddy who served in Iraq, it's the preferred rifle for the desert...

Uh no, it isn't. It's good choice if you need to reach out and touch somebody, but that's about it.

Oh... the guys in Iraq and American Rifleman must be lying then.


AR just did a big article on that very subject in the last couple months or so, which confirmed a story I had already heard (and was skeptical at the time, until the AR article confirmed what a Iraq vet had already told me).

KC Scott wrote:

Dinsdale wrote: Likes me some .45ACP. The Big Bang Theory and whatsuch.

Mine:

:jealous:


Smith don't mess around... and the price tag from top to bottom would tend to reinforce that.

KC Scott wrote:Glock 34

I've got reasonably large hands... not huge, but bigger than average.

I'll pass on the Glock line of meat-slicers. Great guns, but not fpr people with meaty hands. I'll take your Smith, where someone actually put some thought into not injuring the shooter with the moving parts.

Reading comp isn't yalls strong point.

We are on the same side Dins. Just because I don't see the need for those, doesn't mean I am going to fight you having them. If you see the need great.

mvscal wrote:

Cuda wrote:A "piece of shit" that rarely jammed

It even more rarely hit the target, so who really gives a fuck?

a ballistically superior round than the NATO 5.56, btw

I laughed. What the fuck do you know about it, btw?

I've owned, shot & re-loaded both of them over the years. The AK wasn't meant to be a 500 meter weapon, but the 7.62x39 round will get there and still have stopping power. The 5.56 round might reach 300 meters given enough elevation but it'll also barely have enough energy to punch through a piece of paper. Also, the AK has no need for a "forward assist" to help chamber a balky round. It's also worth mentioning that every available M-14 was pulled out of storage, refurbished, and issued to our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan when the M4/M16 proved to be inadequate in many situations.

mvscal wrote:

Cuda wrote:It's also worth mentioning that every available M-14 was pulled out of storage, refurbished, and issued to our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan when the M4/M16 proved to be inadequate in many situations.

It never really entirely left service, but yes they being issued to snipers and designated marksmen.

Why would snipers want a piece of shit rifle like the M14?

Oh, yeah, because it'll punch thru a car door at 300 meters and still kill the muzzie suicide bomber behind the wheel- something their M4's weren't even doing at 50 meters.

Rack Fu wrote:I almost bought a Sig 556 SWAT rifle about a year ago. Too damn expensive though. The gas piston rifles have their advantages. Cost, however, is certainly not one of them.

How much?

KC Scott wrote:

Rack Fu wrote:I almost bought a Sig 556 SWAT rifle about a year ago. Too damn expensive though. The gas piston rifles have their advantages. Cost, however, is certainly not one of them.

How much?

$1,800 or so before tax.

So the AK couldn't hit 'spray at 100 yards.

So fukking what.

Is it a POS?

Depends.

If you have spare parts and the time, material and training to properly maintain it, yeah, I guess it is a POS.

If you're a poor as dirt zipperhead or sand negro living in filth, it is the best fukking firearm ever made.

It can put lead in the air in the general direction you want it, every time you squeeze the trigger. if you are fighting in a congested third world shithole city or in a jungle where you can't see further than 10 yards, this is usually good enough.

If you are an army sniper trying to punch some muzzies ticket from across the valley, yeah, it's a real big pos.

Rack Fu wrote:

KC Scott wrote:

Rack Fu wrote:I almost bought a Sig 556 SWAT rifle about a year ago. Too damn expensive though. The gas piston rifles have their advantages. Cost, however, is certainly not one of them.

How much?

$1,800 or so before tax.

??? - that doesn't sound too out of line to me

KC Scott wrote:
??? - that doesn't sound too out of line to me

I didn't say it was out of line. It's just expensive. Add an EOTech sight and I was looking at nearly $2,500 after tax.

I got a tricked out Colt AR-15 for pretty much half the price. That was government pricing but still.

mvscal wrote:

Cuda wrote:Why would snipers want a piece of shit rifle like the M14?

It's a piece of shit as an assault rifle. It's heavy and useless as an automatic weapon. The End.

Yet practically every one of them that Uncle Friendly still had on hand were re-issued and put to use on the battlefield. And even the full auto feature on the M4/M16 has been limited to 3 round bursts for a long time now.

As far as the AK being an inaccurate pile of shit, why don't you volunteer to stand downrange, say 250 meters, and let someone fire off a few rounds at you? No? How about 500 meters then? Didn't think so. By the same token, I'm not willing to try hiding behind a car door at 100 meters and take incoming rounds from a 5.56 either.

As far as the AK being an inaccurate pile of shit, why don't you volunteer to stand downrange, say 250 meters, and let someone fire off a few rounds at you? No? How about 500 meters then? Didn't think so. By the same token, I'm not willing to try hiding behind a car door at 100 meters and take incoming rounds from a 5.56 either.

Now there's a tv game show I'd actually watch.

Speaking of putting lead in the air and not giving a rat's ass about accuracy--- I used one of these back in the day.
Good for close quarters fire fights.